Equality analysis of Permanency,
Promotion and Increment applications
submitted to Academic Staffing Committee
in 2014-15
1
Executive Summary
1.1
This report analyses University-level equality-related data from the last complete round of
academic promotions in 2015 and compares it, where possible, to previous years in order to identify
significant trends.
1.2
As part of our Athena SWAN action plan we have identified a range of actions designed to
further gender equality in all disciplines. Departmental-level data is analysed as part of this work in
order to identify whether any additional local-level actions are required in order to further gender
equality in those areas.
1.3
When analysing promotions, permanency and increment/bonus data by nationality, we see
that the success rate of applicants from outside the UK is lower than that of applicants from the UK,
The Global Forum have received anecdotal evidence that being from outside the UK and not having
English as a first language hinders the career development of academic staff. This has prompted a
piece of work to look at the effect of ethnicity, nationality and language on academic career
progression, the results of which will be published by the end of the current academic year.
1.4
This is the first time that applicants for promotion and increments have been asked to provide
equality monitoring information at the point of making their application (this information is separated
from the application itself) in order to try and encourage those who had not previously disclosed this
information to do so.
1.5
This approach had some success. For example the ethnicity disclosure rates for candidates
for promotion to Professor and Senior Lecturer/Senior Research Fellow were 93.8% and 92.7%
respectively. This compares to an overall disclosure rate for all staff of 89.5% and for academic and
research staff of 92.5%. However, the ethnicity disclosure rate for those applying for promotion to
Grade 9 was 81.8%, 10.7% lower than the disclosure rate for academic and research staff.
1.6
In addition, this is the first year that analysis of permanency, promotion and increment data by
sexual orientation has taken place. Disclosure of sexual orientation at the point of application was
lower than the overall disclosure rate for all staff (currently 38.7%) for both applicants for promotion to
Professor and SL/SRF (31.3% and 25% respectively). However, the sexual orientation disclosure rate
for those applying for promotion to Grade 9 was 45.5%, 6.8% higher than the disclosure rate for
academic and research staff. If disclosure of sexual orientation continues to rise incrementally as we
have seen since we started collecting this data (disclosure has risen from 8.1% as at 31 December
2012 to 38.7% as at 31 December 2014), robust analysis of this protected characteristic should be
possible in the coming years.
2
Promotion to Professor
2.1
The overall success rate of 62.5% for promotion to Professor is lower than in 2014 (100%) but
higher than in 2013 (55.56%).
2.2
Gender: Of the 16 applicants in 2015, 6 were women (37.5%), of whom 2 were successful
(33.3%). Of the 10 male applicants 8 were successful (80%). When comparing applicants by gender
with the overall pool of eligible staff (Senior Lecturers/Senior Research Fellows and Readers), 8.6%
of eligible women (6 from 70) applied compared to 8.9% of eligible men (10 from 112). See below
graphical representation.
Proportion of staff split by gender over 4 years
100%
1
90%
80%
4
65
3
1
2
71
75
70%
8
%
60%
50%
17
40%
30%
15
98
7
70
6
112
10
8
9
116
Female
8
115
20%
4
10%
Male
4
0%
Total
Eligible
Staff
Applicants Successful
applicants
Total
Eligible
Staff
2012
Applicants Successful
applicants
Total
Eligible
Staff
Applicants Successful
applicants
2013
Total
Eligible
Staff
Applicants Successful
applicants
2014
2015
2.3
Ethnicity: Just two of the 16 applicants (12.5%) declared being from an ethnic minority (one of
the candidates did not disclose their ethnicity). Neither of those applicants was successful. 69.2% of
white applicants (9 from 13) were successful. When comparing applicants by ethnicity with the overall
pool of eligible staff, 8.6% of eligible white staff (13 from 154) applied compared to 10.5% of eligible
staff from an ethnic minority (2 from 19). See below graphical representation.
Proportion of staff split by ethnicity over 4 years
100%
0
98%
96%
94%
0
8
16
2
1
1
2
1
21
19
%
92%
90%
10
88%
86%
84%
2
9
Ethnic Minority
160
144
17
11
9
16
11
161
White
154
82%
13
80%
Total
Eligible
Staff
Applicants Successful
applicants
2012
Total
Eligible
Staff
Applicants Successful
applicants
2013
Total
Eligible
Staff
Applicants Successful
applicants
2014
Total
Eligible
Staff
Applicants Successful
applicants
2015
2.4
Nationality: The proportion of non-UK applicants in 2015 (60%) is the highest since 2009
(66.7%). The success rate of UK applicants was 66.7% (4 from 6) and the success rate of non-UK
applicants was 60% (6 from 10). When comparing applicants by nationality with the overall pool of
eligible staff, 15.4% of eligible staff from outside the UK applied, compared with 5.1% of eligible UK
staff, see below graphical representation. This is the second consecutive year that the proportion of
eligible non-UK staff who applied was higher than the proportion of eligible UK staff. Prior to that the
proportion of UK staff applying for promotion to Professor was always higher than that of non-UK
staff.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
6
60
2
4
13
7
127
Applicants Successful
applicants
7
Non-UK
117
121
5
Total
Eligible
Staff
2012
6
10
8
14
5
80
65
69
5
82
Total
Eligible
Staff
Applicants Successful
applicants
2013
Total
Eligible
Staff
UK
5
Applicants Successful
applicants
4
6
Total
Eligible
Staff
Applicants Successful
applicants
2014
2015
2.5
Age: In 2015, the highest proportion of applicants (50%) were aged between 36 and 45. Of
the 182 eligible staff, 36.3% fall into that age bracket. 25.8% of eligible staff are aged between 56 and
65, but only 13% of applicants fell into that age bracket. In the years 2009 to 2013 the age group with
the highest proportion of applicants was 46-55.
Proportion of staff split by age in 2015
%
%
Proportion of staff split by nationality over 4 years
3
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Total Academic & Research
staff
Total Eligible Staff
Applicants
Successful candidates
66+
29
7
0
0
56-65
140
47
2
0
46-55
192
53
5
3
36-45
243
66
8
6
26-35
139
9
1
1
Promotion to Senior Lecturer/Senior Research Fellow
3.1
The overall success rate of 39.3% for promotion to Senior Lecturer/Senior Research Fellow is
significantly lower than in 2014 (68.2%).
3.2
Gender: Of the 28 applicants in 2015, 9 (32.1%) were women and 19 (67.9%) were men. 5 of
the 9 female applicants were successful (55.6%) and 6 of the 19 male applicants were successful
(31.6%). The proportion of female applicants was 12.6% lower than the proportion of eligible female
staff and the proportion of male applicants was 12.6% higher than the proportion of eligible male staff.
See below graphical representation.
Proportion of staff split by gender over 4 years
100%
90%
80%
107
19
14
9
103
10
112
8
70%
17
%
60%
110
5
8
50%
Female
40%
30%
124
26
20
19
124
12
134
7
20%
7
10%
136
Male
6
3
0%
Total
Eligible
Staff
Applicants Successful
applicants
Total
Eligible
Staff
Applicants Successful
applicants
2012
Total
Eligible
Staff
Applicants Successful
applicants
2013
Total
Eligible
Staff
2014
Applicants Successful
applicants
2015
3.3
Women also had a higher success rate compared to men in 2014 (80% compared with
58.3%). This differs from the previous two years; 47.1% of female applicants were successful in 2013
compared with 42.9% of men and in 2012 73.7% of female applicants were successful compared with
76.9% of men;
3.4
Ethnicity: The proportion of applicants from an ethnic minority in 2015 was 18% The success
rate for applicants from an ethnic minority (9%) in 2015 was broadly similar to that of applicants from
an ethnic minority in 2013 (9.09%) but less than the proportion in 2014 (13.33%).
Proportion of staff split by nationality over 4 years
100%
90%
36
5
4
32
3
1
50
3
2
46
5
1
80%
70%
%
60%
Ethnic Minority
50%
40%
181
40
30
174
21
10
179
19
13
182
21
9
White
30%
20%
10%
0%
Total Applicants Successful Total Applicants Successful Total Applicants Successful Total Applicants Successful
Eligible
applicants Eligible
applicants Eligible
applicants Eligible
applicants
Staff
Staff
Staff
Staff
2012
2013
2014
2015
3.5 Nationality: The proportion of non-UK applicants in 2015 (40%) was lower than in 2014 (59.1%). The
success rate of non-UK applicants (36.4%) is also lower than that of UK applicants (41.2%). No trend can
be identified however as in the previous 2 years both the proportion of non-UK applicants and their success
rate was higher than that of UK applicants.
Proportion of staff split by nationality over 4 years
100%
90%
80%
96
19
14
70%
110
15
7
129
13
8
11
4
17
7
131
50%
Non-UK
40%
30%
134
26
20
20%
113
9
4
117
9
7
115
UK
10%
0%
Total
Eligible
Staff
Applicants Successful
applicants
Total
Eligible
Staff
2012
Applicants Successful
applicants
Total
Eligible
Staff
2013
Applicants Successful
applicants
Total
Eligible
Staff
2014
Applicants Successful
applicants
2015
3.5
Age: The majority of applicants in 2015 (71%) were aged between 36 and 45. This is
consistent with the previous 8 annual review cycles.
Proportion of staff split by age in 2015
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
%
%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
4
Total Academic & Research
staff
Total Eligible Staff
Applicants
Successful candidates
66+
29
1
0
0
56-65
140
24
2
0
46-55
192
50
2
1
36-45
243
104
20
8
26-35
139
67
4
2
Promotion to Lecturer Grade 9/Research Fellow
4.1
Of the 11 applicants for promotion to Grade 9, 6 were men and 5 were women. The success
rate for men was 66.7% and the success rate for women was 60%. The overall success rate of 64%
was the lowest since the University started monitoring this data in 2006.
4.2
In relation to the nationality of applicants, there have been large fluctuations in the proportion
of applicants from outside the UK, ranging from 20% in 2012 to 100% in 2014 but due to the small
number of applicants, no significant conclusions can be drawn from this.
5
Permanency/Early permanency
5.1
Of the 29 applications for permanency/early permanency 23 were successful, a success rate
of 79.3%. The success rate in 2014 was 69.6%. Of the 6 unsuccessful applicants 5 had their
probationary period extended and one was not granted early permanency.
5.2
Of the 6 unsuccessful applicants 3 were male and 3 were female, 4 were white and 2 were
from an ethnic minority. All 6 unsuccessful applicants were from outside the UK.
5.3
15 of the 29 applicants disclosed their sexual orientation (51.7%). All of those who disclosed
were heterosexual.
6
Increments
6.1
This is only the second year that equality analysis of increment applications has taken place.
Also, for the first time in 2014-15, applicants could apply for a bonus either in addition to, or instead of
an additional/discretionary increment. This analysis looks at the proportion of successful and
unsuccessful applicants based on whether they received an award or not. It does not take into
account whether they award received was the one applied for.
6.2
Of the 44 applicants 31 were male (70.5%) and 13 were female (29.5%), 39 were white
(88.6%) and 5 were from an ethnic minority (11.4%), 22 (50%) were from the UK and 22 (50%) were
from outside the UK.
6.3
Of the 44 applicants 35 were successful, a success rate of 79.5%. The success rate in 2014
was 100%. Of the 9 unsuccessful applicants 6 were male and 3 were female, 8 were white and 1 was
from an ethnic minority, 2 were from the UK and 7 were from outside the UK.
6.4
In respect of ethnicity the proportion of white staff applying for an additional/discretionary
increment and/or a bonus (88.6%) was 11% higher than the proportion of white academic staff
(77.6%). The proportion of staff from an ethnic minority applying for an additional/discretionary
increment and/or a bonus (11.4%) broadly mirrors the proportion of academic staff who have
disclosed as being from an ethnic minority (11.9%).
6.5
22 of the 44 applicants disclosed their sexual orientation (50%). 20 of those who disclosed
were heterosexual, 1 was a gay man and 1 identified their sexual orientation as ‘other’.
Karen Bush
Head of Equality and Diversity